New film: The Boy Who Cried Warming

I wanted to reach out and inform you that the film was recently completed and virtually launched on our website, August 24th, 2012.

Every Global Warming prediction, has proven to be science fiction. Uncover the truth as we expose the shepherds of Climate Change in this new controversialdocumentary. Introducing first time filmmakers Pete Garcia II (director), Jesse Jones (writer), Deyvis Martinez (dp), Will Rich (sound) in their debut feature lengthfilm. Independently funded, this indie documentary in not associated with any corporate sponsorship or funding whatsoever. No hidden agendas, just the COLDtruth. Support our grassroots campaign through word of mouth.Help spread the word!

The documentary is released just in time for the Venice Film Festival, where it will neither be seen nor even mentioned, all in the interest of safety. Once viewed, word would quickly spread of the film’s unholy nature and the filmmakers would instantly be hunted down by the legions of the hip and cool, driven barking mad by truth.

I persist in misunderstanding why it is that seemingly so few seem capable of realizing that we very well could be close to the end of the present extreme interglacial. Sure, the PDO went negative, on time, about 2008, the AMDO either has, or soon will, so at best we are in for another 30 or so years of NH cooling. With the sun going all quiet on us. At a half-precession old, plus a few centuries, extreme interglacial……

We know that most all of the most recent interglacials either had the obvious and normal thermal peak at or near its deglacial beginning (think Holocene Climate Optimum, sawtooth shape ad nauseum etc.), And we know that MIS-5e ended with two strong thermal excursions right at its very end. MIS-7 having 3 distinct such peaks, MIS-9 one or two, MIS-11 at least two over this long-lived one, and MIS-19 having 3 distinct thermal pulses right at its end.

I simply fail to see how the 2007 IPCC AR4 worst-case scenario of 0.59 meters of sea level rise by 2100 could even unreasonably be considered anomalous against the most recent natural end extreme interglacial sea level “noise” of a minimum of +6 meters, maximum of +52 meters (10 to nearly 100 times the worst AGW prognostication).

I would really be interested to know just how many here would be scared out of their wits by a UN consensus that a manmade signal, coming in at best 10% of the end extreme interglacial noise, constitutes an anomaly.

Enlighten me. Please.

At the end of this very Homo sapiens day, if you are worried about the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG, you had better hope and pray that its powers as a GHG are absolutely correct. If there is even the remotest possibility that the Holocene might be winding up to wind down into the next glacial, would the “wise one” strip the climate security blanket from the late Holocene atmosphere?

I got the link from the Bishop’s site and watched it all. I don’t know or care if it is a form of confirmation bias or any of the other denigrating, life experience robbing behavior definitions (concern troll being my least favorite – thanks to that we can’t even be legitimately and publicly concerned for each other), this is a nicely done video.

Interesting. Of course, polar bears are stars again. By the way, if someone tells you that the polar bears look thin, here’s the reason. They are on hunger strike. The pis*ed off polar bears have created their own website here:

I don’t think it’s about whether the wolf turns up or not, it’s about the fact one shouldn’t lie about it.

My memory of the story might be wrong but I think only the boy got eaten because no one believed him when he cried wolf for real. Foolish thing, to lie for gain. If it ever happens for real, in whichever direction (warming or cooling), no one will be listening to “climate scientists”.

I watched it – very disappointed. It waffled on and on with stuff we’ve seen before over and over.
they didn’t show the lack of warming over the past 15 years.
they resolved all their charts to 2005!
they skipped over climategate 1 and ignored climategate 2.

sorry guys – no contribution, thanks for trying.
Unfortunately you do do more harm than good.

I’d love to watch this film if it wasn’t apparently and frustratingly locked up behind some kind of impassable secure cookie paywall(?), or something.
The only way I am going to be able to watch it is if I download it and watch it LATER on my laptop in my own good time. The paywall(?) seems to frustrate that for users like me. Which is a pity, because, I if I watched it that way, my three older children would watch it with me before bedtime.

Thanks for pointing to the film anyway.
What a pity the producers seems to have scored an “own goal” here, by making it virtually impossible for people like me and my family to watch.
For goodness’ sake, why wouldn’t they WANT people to watch it and thus make it easy for them to watch and to tell their friends about it?
If I can’t watch it, then I’m not likely to recommend it to any of my friends – am I?

I’d love to watch this film if it wasn’t apparently and frustratingly locked up behind some kind of impassable secure cookie paywall(?), or something.
The only way I am going to be able to watch it is if I download it and watch it LATER on my laptop in my own good time. The paywall(?) seems to frustrate that for users like me. Which is a pity, because, I if I watched it that way, my three older children would watch it with me before bedtime.

Thanks for pointing to the film anyway.
What a pity the producers seems to have scored an “own goal” here, by making it virtually impossible for people like me and my family to watch.
For goodeness’ sake, why wouldn’t they WANT people to watch it and thus make it easy for them to watch and to tell their friends about it?
If I can’t watch it, then I’m not likely to recommend it to any of my friends – am I?

john byatt says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:14 am
I seem to remember that the wolf did turn up, how many were eaten?

Just the alarmist.

The moral of the tale is, if you spread alarmism, don’t expect people to believe you if you find a real crisis exists. Modify the story a little, and the boy (climate scientist) at the end cries “Tiger, Tiger.” (global cooling) and no one believes him.

Mjk says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:27 am
So “every prediction has proven to be science fiction.” Talk about an overstatement. It discredits the film immediately. Off to check out latest stats on this year’s record low in the arctic……

The prediction originally was polar amplification. When this clearly wasn’t happening in the Antarctic, but was apparently in the Arctic, the prediction morphed into Arctic amplification.

Thus the prediction was ‘science fiction’. All the rest is post hockery.

In order to qualify as science you must make the prediction, before the event occurs.

I persist in misunderstanding why it is that seemingly so few seem capable of realizing that we very well could be close to the end of the present extreme interglacial…
_________________________
You and me both.

I sometimes wonder if the whole CAGW/ Agenda 21/Sustainability/de-industrialization crap is all about reducing the majority of humans to the 18th century level so we haven’t got a snowballs change in Hades of migrating south as the glaciers advance and no decent weapons to fight with even if we do. I can not believe the Movers and Shakers in this world are oblivious to the fact we are nearing the end of the Holocene. Sort of puts a different light on the African and South American Land Grab doesn’t it?

The End of the Freedom to Travel in the USA

…By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.

In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans….

Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, farmer’s markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, huge fees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether. County roads are not being paved. The push is for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities. To get out of the suburbs and into the cities. Out of their private homes and into condos. Out of their private cars and onto their bikes.

…What’s the connection with bike groups? National groups such as Complete Streets, Thunderhead Alliance, and others, have training programs teaching their members how to pressure for redevelopment, and training candidates for office. It’s not just about bike lanes, it’s about remaking cities and rural areas to the ‘sustainable model’. High density urban development without parking for cars is the goal. This means that whole towns need to be demolished and rebuilt in the image of sustainable development. Bike groups are being used as the ‘shock troops’ for this plan.

In one of her videos on Agenda 21, Rosa Koire, mentions the “pulverizing of roads,” a joint US/china project for a sterilization vaccine and using Global Warming as the scare tactic for implementing Agenda 21. (well worth seeing) Rosa worked for the California Department of Transportation in land takings (Eminent domain)

..TSA Administrator John Pistole told Congress last week that the TSA conducts 8,000 unannounced security screenings every year. These screenings, conducted with local law enforcement agencies as well as immigration, can be as simple as checking out cargo at a busy seaport. But more and more, they seem to involve giving airport-style pat-downs and screenings of unsuspecting passengers at bus terminals, ferries, and even subways….

I wonder how long it will be before we will need “passports” just to leave town?

will watch it when the tennis is over – LOL.
meanwhile, a study published in the Journal of Climate, seems to go against the usual CAGW-associating propaganda, whether or not their findings are proven to be valid:

30 Aug: Australian: Matthew Denholm: Antarctic ice sheds light on big dry
EASTERN Australia is experiencing its driest period since the Middle Ages, according to a study that overturns the nation’s understanding of average rainfall.
Scientists at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre have used ice cores, drilled into the east Antarctic ice, to provide a record of the climate during the past 1000 years…
The resulting confidence in the correlation between low salt-ice concentrations in east Antarctica and rainfall in eastern Australia allowed the scientists to calculate a rainfall record stretching back to the year 1000. This data suggests rainfall in eastern Australia since 1920 is below the average of the past 1000 years.
The last similarly dry period was from AD1000 to 1260, in particular between 1160 and 1260, the year Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire.
“In the context of the last 1000 years, it (eastern Australia) is a lot drier than normal,” Dr Vance told The Australian. “But we can see that there has been another dry period as well (ending in 1260).”…
“It is a leap — it is a proxy record, in that it tells us something about what really happened,” she said. “It is not an exact record like an instrumental record, but it is a significant finding. This (salts in Antarctic ice) is significantly related to rainfall in Australia.”
It was not possible to draw any definitive conclusions as to what caused the big dry that ended in 1260, or the present extended dominance of El Nino.
“We are pretty sure reduced rainfall is the result of increased or more frequent El Ninos during both periods, compared to the last 1000 years,” Dr Vance said. “The cause of those El Ninos is up for grabs.” While rising temperatures may be driving the present period of El Nino dominance, less was known about the period from 1160 to 1260…
Published in the Journal of Climate, the study is the work of the Hobart-based ACE CRC, Australian Antarctic Division and Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antarctic-ice-sheds-light-on-big-dry/story-e6frg8y6-1226461149921

From ABC – not a single word (in a very short piece) about AD1000 to 1260 or AD 1160 to 1260, in fact more an attempt to isolate the recent hundred years as something unprecedented:

For those complaining that you have to sign in or contribute…you don’t, just read the information provided at the links in order to reach the video or watch it directly at Vimeo http://vimeo.com/47182591
The producers of the film are soliciting voluntary contributions at their website as is their right and they are offering an opportunity to sign up for their newsletter. None of it is compulsory, I am watching the film via the links on their site without doing either. Yet.

Really, try reading a few hundred of the climate change papers published each year. Some are physics, some are biology, some are paleo. Take your choice or read a mixture. They are written by scientists from around the world and they all are “wrong.” (?). I assume that both the data and the analysis are wrong (?) The first climate science prediction that comes to mind is that “warming will be fastest in the arctic” which is supported by data that the “arctic sea ice is melting.” Oh, it seems that I read somewhere that there has been a great recovery of the sea ice following the 2007 record melt. Is that what this movie is about, the sea ice recovery? I’m getting ready for work and don’t have time to watch it right now but may have a view this evening.

Yes, our climate has clearly shown that it is capable of extremes far beyond anything envisaged in IPCC reports. Am I somehow supposed to be reassured by the fact that sea levels have previously been between 6m and 52m higher than at present?

A film straplined ‘Every Global Warming prediction has proven to be science fiction’ is released in the week that the Arctice Ice extent hits a new low, already 0.8 million sq km below the prediction made by WUWT for the annual minimum.

Strawman.
I must have missed the Global Warming prediction of the Arctic (or Antarctic for that matter) sea ice extent in 2012.
Care to give a link?

On the other hand I quite distinctly remember predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean every year after 2000, 2010, 2020 …
I do not remember predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean starting in 1990, 1995 etc but would not be surprised if there are some too.
It makes me smile to see how all those CAGW believers carefully avoid to speak about Antarctic sea ice. Always :)

The prediction that ice will be melting is quite trivial, known for a long time (actually since Milankovitch) and needs no CAGW.
It has been melting for a long time, you know ? Exactly since the last Ice Age achieved its minimum.

Just get used to it – if the interglacial doesn’t brutally and unexpectedly end soon (what can’t be excluded) the ice will go on melting for a long time!
That’s what it always did during interglacials and this one is not an exception.
Eventually it may very well happen that Arctics will become one day completely ice free and if this interglacial is like an average interglacial, it will surely happen.

Anarchist says:
‘“waaaaaaaaah arctic ice waaaaaaaaaaaaah” seriously is that all you sniveling knuckle dragging alarmists can say? It’s like a broken f*cking record. By the way what’s happening in the antarctic?’

The first climate science prediction that comes to mind is that “warming will be fastest in the arctic” which is supported by data that the “arctic sea ice is melting.”

Well if this is the first “prediction” then you have a lot to learn.
The first prediction that should have come to mind was that “the Milankovich cycle predicts warming” and not surprisingly it is supported by the data about ice and for a MUCH longer time than only the 20th century.
And indeed in the warming phase of Milankovitch cycle, it is the high latitudes that change most. This si actually rather trivial, known since a long time and has been happening for millions of years regardless of “man made” CO2.

The first prediction and probably sofar the only one that has been substantiated, is that the temperatures should increase by about 0.3°C/decade (some predicted much bigger numbers).
And here the data don’t really suport that.

Biology makes certainly no predictions unless the one that it can predict a thing and its opposite simultaneously.
The place is missing to list all the stupidities that biology has “predicted” – a short research of this site will produce dozens of really amusing examples (the average size of some australian bird will increase in Paper 1 but it wil decrease in Paper 2. etc)

Here is the recipe how anybody can write a paper about biology and global warming.

1) Begin to say in introduction how horribly worrying is global warming
2) Choose a random parameter to measure (color of eggs, size of feet, height of bushes). The only important thing is that it changes. If it doesn’t change enough, choose something else.
3) Apply any kind of statistics on this. As you are ignorant in professional statistics like 99% of biologists, a least square regression will generally do.
4) Say that the trend you found is due to global warming.
5) To go sure repeat that this is worrying. The best among you will add that it is actually worse than we previously thought. Suggest that further research is necessary.
6) Submit and make sure that the reviewers are CAGW believers.

I just watched it and I think it’s a good effort but the clownish graphics and constant new age music playing in the background were a little too much for me. It’s almost like the director got bored with the material and decided to go crazy with Final Cut Pro. Nothing new here. And what’s with the creepy CG opening sequence where a team from the “United Nations Space Exploration” agency is viewing Earth from a space vehicle? Is that supposed to be a vision of our dystopian future if Obama wins a second term?

Does anyone know if this can be downloaded from anywhere. I can put up with the stop start stop start streaming.
Grrrr!
***************************
with firefox and download helper extension many things are possible after starting to play it from the main website…its 1.3gb mp4 file…do with that what you will

BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am
Really, try reading a few hundred of the climate change papers published each year. Some are physics, some are biology, some are paleo. Take your choice or read a mixture. They are written by scientists from around the world and they all are “wrong.” (?). I assume that both the data and the analysis are wrong (?)

What data?

Almost every paper supporting cAGW first assumes that the conclusion is true and then goes from there. The most common method is to base a paper on models. Of course, models are just the assumptions of the programmers and hence are not data.

The real data? Well, no warming this century, TOA radiation above what the models predict, historic examples of warming equal to or greater than present, etc., etc. Yeah, that’s the real data.

Gail C says: “I can not believe the Movers and Shakers in this world are oblivious to the fact we are nearing the end of the Holocene.”

I believe the movers and shakers are movers and shakers because they have spent their lives studying how to accumulate wealth and power and, to varying degrees, apply it to suit one’s purpose. With all things viewed through that lens, truth is not an objective. Instead, “facts” (true or not) are viewed as a means to further that end. Climate change has myriad opportunities in this light making it an ideal means to that end, providing, however, that it can be blamed on man and corrected by implementing costly rules and regulations. Thus the majority of the movers and shakers are not just on board, but enthusiastically on board.

This film sucks. It focused on the least important and least scientifically sound objections to CAGW; the tone was cold and creepy; there was hardly any data. Some of the statements made by experts were very sloppy. For instance, one of them says that polar bears have survived in a variable climate for millions of years, yet the species is probably not a million years old yet.

Skeptics need a great documentary, but this certainly isn’t it. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

I am also one who does not like sound bites turned into movie length dramas. I prefer well-done cohesive lectures with supporting data demonstrating both sides of the issue followed by logical arguments as to strengths and weaknesses. In the closing remarks, it is through this unbiased examination that tips the scale one way or the other that determines the final conclusion, not the number of sound bite belief statements from talking heads. Scientists should avoid being talking heads.

@Mjk
>…Off to check out latest stats on this year’s record low in the arctic……

++++

What a yuk. You think that is the record ‘low sea ice’ do you? Are you clever enough to see that you posted that comment on a thread that is only a few lines above another article showing that many centuries ago when when there were no SUV’s and no coal-fired power plants, there was half as much sea ice in the Arctic as there is right now? So how do you figger the current ‘low’ is some sort of ‘record’, huh?

To me ‘record’ means that to our knowledge it has never been lower – something like Limbo dancing under a pole. If the record is 8.5 inches, then reaching 17 inches is not a ‘record’. Duh. It is that sort of alarmist crap that creates confirmed skeptics out of people who otherwise don’t give a hoot. They are of course most welcomed to the club.

BillD, please cite some of those papers for us. I have read some “climate change papers” published by “scientists”. Many of the one’s I’ve read would not have passed if presented to any of my various (depending on academic discipline) high school teachers or university professors forty plus years ago. In the archives of Watts Up With That and Climate Depot there are many research papers (by real scientists) cited debunking the CAGW claims.

By the way, one of my main criticisms of the “climate scientist” research papers is that the research results do not support the “warming caused by man” concusions.

“Graham Green says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:23 am
Does anyone know if this can be downloaded from anywhere…”

Yes, I have downloaded the whole movie (1.3GB) from http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com/ using Mozilla Firefox with DownloadHelper plugin. Click on “Watch now”, then on “No thanks, I just want to watch the movie”, and then follow the standard DownloadHelper procedure.
Good luck.

Yes!! And there is a constant flow of bad science to do sequels. How about one on how science and the peer review process was hijacked and how large professional and religious organizations were manipulated?

I often ask my students to read scientific articles from peer reviewed journals and to comment on the strengths and the weaknesses or limitations of each study. This is important work for scientists in training. The most important question in peer review is: Are the conclusions of the study well supported by the data and analysis? Second, do the authors point out the limitations and uncertainties in their study? When acting as an editor or reviewer, I often support the publication of studies that provide strong evidence, even if they go against what I think is true. I have also rejected many papers where I agree with the underlying hypothesis and theory, but where the evidence is weak. I applaud Anthony for working to get his research published in the scientific literature. He would probably agree that “getting published” is a time-consuming and difficult task.

If you want to be a true skeptic you need to be willing to: 1) be critical of studies, reports and blog posts that are based on weak evidence and 2) offer specific targeted criticism of scientific studies that offer evidence and conclusions that you disagree with.

30 Aug: Australian: Matthew Denholm: Antarctic ice sheds light on big dry
EASTERN Australia is experiencing its driest period since the Middle Ages, according to a study that overturns the nation’s understanding of average rainfall.
Scientists at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre have used ice cores, drilled into the east Antarctic ice, to provide a record of the climate during the past 1000 years…
The resulting confidence in the correlation between low salt-ice concentrations in east Antarctica and rainfall in eastern Australia allowed the scientists to calculate a rainfall record stretching back to the year 1000. This data suggests rainfall in eastern Australia since 1920 is below the average of the past 1000 years.The last similarly dry period was from AD1000 to 1260, in particular between 1160 and 1260, the year Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire.
……..

More interestingly, the period of AD 1000 to 1260 was the Medieval Warm Period the descent into the little ice age began around AD 1310-1315 just after that extra dry century 1160-1260. So what this paper is saying is that the previous time this happened was also at a time of global warming. As this is an analogue and Australia is at a peak ‘dry’ now that has surpassed that at the end of the Medieval Warm Period, perhaps the analogue will continue into a descent into the cold of what one hopes will only be a little ice age.

So global warming is false because:
One study says that polar bear populations are stable, and several articles were published in the late 1970’s about global cooling? And now we for some reason need to study the climate of our planetary neighbors (talk about stalling for time!) to show that our own climate is warming, even though the change in atmospheric composition is happening not on Mars or Venus but on Earth? I’ll concede, that there is no absolute proof that humans are causing the climate to warm, but consider this: we only have one habitable planet on which we can do this climate experiment on, and it seems grossly irresponsible to bet the future of our species on the slim chance that you global warming skeptics are correct.

BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am
The first climate science prediction that comes to mind is that “warming will be fastest in the arctic” which is supported by data that the “arctic sea ice is melting.”
====================
However, the Antarctic is cooling (increased ice) which is contrary to prediction.

A much more likely cause of the Arctic warming and Antarctic cooling is the solar wind and the earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field is known from paleo records to be associated with cliamte change. The magnetic field is currently changing faster that at any time in recent history.

The north magnetic pole is moving towards the Arctic and the south magnetic pole is moving away from the Antarctic. This is affecting the volume of charged particles from the sun reaching the earth’s atmosphere each day at the poles, changing the cloud cover and ozone production, and causing localized ice melt in the Arctic and ice accumulation in the Antarctic.

Climate science has missed the boat because they are so tied up in the mantra that “CO2 causes everything”, which is not science, it is advocacy directed at fossil fuel use. Climate science is so busy looking at CO2 they have ignored the obvious.

The earth’s magnetic field is changing, at a rate we have never seen before. Is this the event that marks the end of the interglacial? We are due (overdue) to slip back into the next ice age.

“…So “every prediction has proven to be science fiction.” Talk about an overstatement. It discredits the film immediately. Off to check out latest stats on this year’s record low in the arctic…”

and

20.Phil Clarke said (August 30, 2012 at 1:59 am)

“…A film straplined ‘Every Global Warming prediction has proven to be science fiction’ is released in the week that the Arctice Ice extent hits a new low, already 0.8 million sq km below the prediction made by WUWT for the annual minimum.

Seems the planet has a sense of irony…”

Also seems that the planet has it’s own cycles that don’t include Man.

You need to read up on something called the “hothouse” and “icehouse” earth theories.

In short, scientists have found evidence that about 34 million years ago, we started our current “icehouse” state, as ice sheets began to form in Antarctica; the ice sheets in the Arctic didn’t start forming until 2 million years ago.

So while the current Arctic ice may be at a RECENT all time low, the earth has gone through periods with a LOT less ice than we have now.

BillD, There are not a couple of hundred climate change papers published each year. Unless you’re counting all papers that assume anthropogenic climate change and then make conclusions. Assumptions and unsupported attribution can make valid discussion items, but don’t add weight to the hypothesis. If you weed down to only those papers which directly contribute to knowledge of climate change, I think you’ll find a much different picture.

henrythethird says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:46 am
So while the current Arctic ice may be at a RECENT all time low, the earth has gone through periods with a LOT less ice than we have now.
=============
Exactly. Imagine the human species was short lived and lived exclusively in the northern hemisphere. We developed intelligence and started keeping records in February 2012. We are now in August 2012 and our history shows rapid warming. From this we (climate science) would predict that by December 2012 it would be roasting hot outside.

Our records of long term climate are poor to say the least. The surface thermometer records show much more warming than is shown by satellites. So what do cliamte scientists do? They ignore the satellite records because they don’t support the foregone conclusion, that CO2 drives cliamte change.

We saw this in the IPCC and their rush to overthrow previous studies showing a medieval warming period and a little ice age, and replace all of this with the unverified and un-replicated hockey stick. We see this time and time again with the failure to publish data, which is standard practice in climate science, and unacceptable in any other field. This is not science. It is nonsense.

As the Wizard of Oz said, the only thing that separates the scarecrow from a learned person is a piece of paper. At least the scarecrow had common sense.

Scientifically, recent warming cannot be caused by CO2 GHG effect, because the science of GHG warming requires the atmosphere to warm first followed by the surface. All the records show that it is the surface that has warmed first, with much less atmospheric warming, This is contrary to the science behind GHG warming and clearly established that GHG is not the cause of the observed surface warming.

The failure of cliamte science to recognize this obvious falsification demonstrates that climate science is pseudo-science. The most basic prediction of GHG warming has failed and there is no known mechanism by which this can have happened that is consistent with the GHG theory.

Thank you to everyone who is checking the film out, it is very rewarding to see the fruits of our labor. We really appreciate those who took the time to write comments on the film here, its amazing when you can see actual discourse on your project evolve (even criticism), as filmakers the objective is always to get people talking! I would respond to some of the technical issues people are having, but the thread seems to be taking care of this. I hope overall you enjoyed it, and if you did not, at least it didn’t cost you anything but your time!

Special Thanks to those personally donating, you are the lifeblood of “The Boy Who Cried Warming”

You can also check the Sea Ice Reference page on WUWT at any time to see how much the Abtarctic ice coverage is above the long term trend. The lower rainfall in Eastern Australia since the 1920’s is strongly linked to increasing sea ice in Antarctica, right?

Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2012 at 6:54 am
“I am also one who does not like sound bites turned into movie length dramas. I prefer well-done cohesive lectures with supporting data demonstrating both sides of the issue followed by logical arguments as to strengths and weaknesses. In the closing remarks, it is through this unbiased examination that tips the scale one way or the other that determines the final conclusion, not the number of sound bite belief statements from talking heads. Scientists should avoid being talking heads”

Unfortunately, logic does not win the hearts and minds of the masses, sound bites do. Hope and change anyone?

The claim “every prediction has proven to be science fiction.” is easily falsifiable. Without checking every prediction, how can this be supported? Is hyperbole bad when used by the warmist hotheads but good when used by skeptics?*

Remove the “every prediction has proven to be science fiction” line and instead list the ones that have been falsified.

* Of course, most AGW claims are based on projections or scenarios, so maybe it’s not far off track, since they aren’t technically predictions.

You can also check the Sea Ice Reference page on WUWT at any time to see how much the Abtarctic ice coverage is above the long term trend. The lower rainfall in Eastern Australia since the 1920′s is strongly linked to increasing sea ice in Antarctica, right?

Nobody specified the Antarctic sea ice, why the cherry pick? If you have a more recent publication that refutes the one I linked to, by all means, cite it, but don’t move the goal posts; it makes you look disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Keep up the good work, Anthony. Your credibility remains unchanged. The good thing is that even if and when WUWT goes defunct and closed down and removed, wattsupwiththat, in its entirety, it will have been archived someplace in perpetuity as a testimony to your efforts, integrity, intelligence, honesty, insight, analysis, contribution. Immortality… doesn’t get better than that.

>>
For goodness’ sake, why wouldn’t they WANT people to watch it and thus make it easy for them to watch and to tell their friends about it?
If I can’t watch it, then I’m not likely to recommend it to any of my friends – am I?
>>

Because they want to hit you $$$ before you watch.

I’d be more impressed if they asked for a donation after I’ve watched not just based on the trailer lined here. From what they give you in the trailer I’m find it has nice graphics but seems rather hollow.

Even less impressed when I select “no thanks, I just want to watch the movie” and it takes me back to
CONTRIBUTE NOW RETURN HOME

Brendan;
I’ll concede, that there is no absolute proof that humans are causing the climate to warm, but consider this: we only have one habitable planet on which we can do this climate experiment on, and it seems grossly irresponsible to bet the future of our species on the slim chance that you global warming skeptics are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Brendan, the sword cuts both ways. The actions required to reduce CO2 emissions have negative consequences of their own. If we were to cut emissions to zero tommorrow, a few billion people would die over the next week or two. This is something that those who wail away about the future of the species seem to not understand (or perhaps they just don’t care?). The bottom line is that we can sentence billions of people to certain death to prevent something that MIGHT happen, or we can make pragmatic decisions on how to deal with things that DO happen. The latter will cost far fewer lives than the former. The notion that a much warmer earth would eradicate us as a species entirely simply has no merit at all.

Richard M says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:56 am
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am
Really, try reading a few hundred of the climate change papers published each year. Some are physics, some are biology, some are paleo. Take your choice or read a mixture. They are written by scientists from around the world and they all are “wrong.” (?). I assume that both the data and the analysis are wrong (?)

What data?

Richard M and others–have you ever read a scientific paper on climate change? I am a biologist, so I am more familiar with biological studies that mostly deal with data on how climate change has affected population distributions and seasonal phenology. I just checked out the web site of a journal called “Global Change Biology.” The new September issue is on their web site and it looks like all 20+ articles are open access. One paper is even about polar bears. Most are about how organisms have changed in response to climate change over the past 30 years or so. Papers that make predictions about the further often use put data into models, since that is the most quantitative way to make predictions. However, most of the papers are based on data without models.

Try reading 5 or 10 of these papers. If you don’t like the data, the analysis or the statistics, go ahead and write to the authors and tell them how to improve their analysis. I occasionally write to authors and mention criticisms of their publications.

Hi Bill, perhaps you would be good enough to point out the paper (s ) that show definitively the link between human generated CO2 and climate change. All the papers I have seen depart from that “stated fact” and so many of the papers you refer to do the same I suspect.

So please, I ask you with tears in my baby blue eyes, point us at the paper showing that Anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change, global warming, climate disruption or whatever the phrase de jour is. Thanks.

As for the movie , 5 stars. It is a great bit of documentary, well crafted, well thought out and accurate to boot. Two thumbs up I say.

Folks should keep in mind this movie is not designed for skeptics. It appears to be designed for people whose only contact with the climate change issue is Al Gore’s movie, AIT. This movie does a good job of pointing out the problems with AIT.

Good grief is that really it?” The ice is melting and it must be man made CO2″. Thanks for that, I will try to gain some understanding of all that they looked at as well as man made CO2 and report back. However looking at the CO2/Ice extent graph which shows correlation yet the CO2 hasn’t correlated with temperature lately I would be curious as to what method the MMCO2 used to melt the ice.

I support this excellent film “The Boy Who Cried Warming”, from the Global Warming Initiative.
Another good dose of climate truth!http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com now has 4 links from my pages.
Thanks.

>>“Also seems that the planet has it’s own cycles that don’t include Man.”

>These cycles were discovered by scientific research. By the same group of folks that are describing AGW. It would be surprising if one body of data were valid, and the other…entirely wrong.

Kevin, do you think that if a cycle is discovered by scientific research, say a 60 year warming and cooling cycle on a 1500 year larger warming and cooling cycle on a larger 26,000 year cycle, that these cycles are supporting of CAGW? Would someone studying all the cycles automatically have to a CAGW promoter? No. They would have all the evidence they need to note that natural variations are faster, steeper, greater and have had more impact than anything that has happened in the 20th and 21st centuries, or that has been predicted by the IPCC or anyone else. I personally have no concerns whatsoever about Arctic sea ice melting 100% each year. We are not causing it, it happened before and it will happen again. It might even warm up enough to melt the permafrost off the graveyards of the Vikings buried in Greenland. Let’s hope so.

It seems to me that many scientists discover cycles and there are few strongly divergent opinions about what they indicate, which is that the Earth has massive warming and cooling events that have nothing to do with AGW. Some take short cycles, say 2006-2009 as in the paper you cited and linked, and its claim that the increase per year in Antarctic Ice loss (that is what you were referring to, right?) is 26 cubic kilometers. Do you think a three (3) year trend is something to base the reorganisation of the global economy on? I doubt it, which means your insincerity is self-evident.

Moving the goal posts? Yes, I noticed when you did exactly that. You talked about Antarctic ice and reference a paper that discussed Antarctic ice and I replied on that same subject.

Kevin, did you calculate the time it would take to melt all the ice in Antarctica at an acceleration rate of 26 km^3 per year? We at WUWT did that long ago and number is hilarously alarming. :)

At minute 6:35 in the clip, the female moderator asks, “are today’s dooming loom predictions any more credible …“! :-) We all know what she means, of course, but still it’s a funny and almost inevitable verbal transposition. Doomed by looms. Who’d have predicted that? :-)

BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:14 am
Being an academic, do you not agree that any paper skeptical of climate change does not get funding, but those that adhere to the meme gets tons of funding. Can you apply your critical thinking skills and see the systemic bias in this?

I did find the info on those road closures @ ~ 1hr 8 minutes. It is in Sonoma County. Sonoma has at present 1384 roads, all but 150 miles of roads will be closed and pulverized. Considering Rosa worked for the California Department of Transportation I think she has her facts straight. The given reason is lack of funding for road maintenance. The county also lists closures for the “Smart Rail” project.

MikeP says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:54 am
BillD, There are not a couple of hundred climate change papers published each year. Unless you’re counting all papers that assume anthropogenic climate change and then make conclusions. Assumptions and unsupported attribution can make valid discussion items, but don’t add weight to the hypothesis. If you weed down to only those papers which directly contribute to knowledge of climate change, I think you’ll find a much different picture.

Mike P—Above I point out that the new issue of Climate Change Biology has 20+ open access articles. So, I assume that one journal has about 200 articles on climate change per year. That’s just one specialized journal! Climate change is published in at least 50 journals representing diverse fields, as well as general journals like Science and Nature. So, I would guess that there are at least several thousand peer reviewed studies on climate change each year. Maybe there are a few thousand physics and atmospherics studies, 1000 + paleo studies and a few thousand studies on biological changes. I am leaving out studies on economics, renewable energy etc, which probably include a few thousand per year. Way more than anyone person can read.

If you do a search on “Climate change” in Google Scholar you get over 2 million hits. Most of the articles cited in Google Scholar are peer reviewed, although I am sure that not all of them are good original articles on climate change. Review articles are also important, however. I would guess that a big marjority of the 2 million plus are within the last 10 years. That could mean more than 100,000 scholarly articles per year that at least cite studies on climate change.

Well done to all the production team. An excellent, if late, riposte to the infamous ‘Inconvenient Truth’ film by Al Gore. Alternative title could be ‘The Real Inconvenient Truth about AGW’. Good to see it is being widely distributed.
Three things I can guarantee though:-
1) It wont be shown on our ‘impartial’ BBC, but Channel 4 might be interested – they broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle’ in 2007.
2) No state school will show it but may get more luck at private ones.
3) My grandchildren wont take a lot of persuasion to watch it.
Two small criticisms – the background electronic ‘musak’ was awful and was a distraction from the authoratative commentary. Secondly, there are a fairly large number of vineyards in SE England, mainly planted since the last was (’45) – some of it quite drinkable!

BillD says:
..Richard M and others–have you ever read a scientific paper on climate change? I am a biologist, so I am more familiar with biological studies that mostly deal with data on how climate change has affected population distributions and seasonal phenology. I just checked out the web site of a journal called “Global Change Biology.” The new September issue is on their web site and it looks like all 20+ articles are open access. One paper is even about polar bears. Most are about how organisms have changed in response to climate change over the past 30 years or so. …

So, you are deliberately associating CO2 induced climate change (aka CAGW) or AGW) with actual climate change? I am sure there have been zillions of instances of biological changes to climate change(s) – (ice age, anyone?) over the millenia, some relatively fast, some slow – so measuring ANY biological change over 30 years means diddly squat in terms of linking to anthropogenic CO2 causes – though I would accept that many such measurable changes could be due to localised pollution, or other anthropogenic effects.

I would very strongly contend that the biosphere is in CONSTANT change with respect to species, from many diverse effects, and NOT just climate. Do all the papers you have read specifically and solely attribute changes to JUST climate, and further, to just warming as a result of increased CO2. I suspect not – at least not any real scientific ones – because the latter link simply cannot be proven!

Indeed, the headline papers of biological studies related to climate change all seem to be head over heels in establishing a link to AGW, but without actual success and certainly not to any level of certainty. The majority are simply grant sucking wastes of effort!

Regarding the film. To the denizens of WUWT? all the information in this movie is old hat. Remember that the general public has probably not heard ANY of this.

For those claiming the points in the movie have been debunked, I put it to you that they have been debunked on sites that delete opposing points of view. That is the very definition of echo chamber. Try posting those same challenges on a site that leaves debate open. Do you have the stones?

BillD, many species cycle through oceanic oscillation-driven weather pattern variations in short and long term spans. What does not happen is climate change (excluding of course geologic time scales). Weather patterns change, sometimes rapidly, within the broader band of current geographic climate boundaries. So far, the noise of anthropogenic changes in weather patterns have yet to change geographic climates. In fact, anthropogenic weather noise has not exceeded natural weather noise within geographic climates. The signal you seek is still buried and therefore cannot be extracted from natural noise. So any changes in flora and fauna cannot yet be attributed to CO2-related “anthropogenic climate change” (the quotes serve to inform you that I do not thing this label is an appropriate label for human-caused weather pattern variations).

You know this because you know that weather pattern data is clear on this (unless you are choosing to ignore the data). A human signal has yet to be found in weather (IE atmospheric and oceanic driven weather parameters). If you still prefer to believe in empirically unsupportable AGW-driven biological changes in flora and fauna, I for one would have to argue with whether or not you should be teaching scientific criticism. This is a class I have taken at the graduate level so I am familiar with this discipline and apply it regularly as an educator.

So, let’s look at polar bear adaption to warming in the north: the bears have adapted by finding there are a lot more fish because there is more for fish to eat. Fish are eaten by seals and as a result there are more seals too! Did you notice? Then because there are more seals, they are easier to catch and so the polar bear population has rocketed upwards like a hockey stick on steroids. I am not talking about a few degress of uptick, I am talking about a 400% increase in my lifetime. You know what kills polar bears? Thick ice. They starve to death because seals can’t create breathing holes.

I suggest that CAGW alarmists who want to read, through their tears, the data and not the models, take a long, close biological look at the explosion of the polar bear population over a 50 year period (1962-2012) and revise some of their doom-and-gloom pronouncements and the future of this particular Usrus.

For heaven’s sake no one start telling me about seals needing ice to live/breed/buy condos. There are seals living happily in South Africa (like the ‘ice-needing’ penguins in Fish Hoek) and in California where they have the good sense to enjoy the sun while it still shines.

I hate to criticize this but it comes off low budget. For the most part the interviews themselves are decent and you do get scientists such as Pat Michaels and Willie Soon in the full version. However, you initially have interviews with no captions of who they are or their qualifications (these show up later but should be immediate). Some are not the best representation of who they are, for instance, Pat Michael’s caption should include, “Ph.D. in Climatology”. You have some subtle audio problems where the sound changes based on the interviewee likely because the mike was on the camera. I would not have included the non climate scientists to explain anything relating to climate science but only used them for policy information. The narration also comes off as amateurish, it probably would have been better to just have stuck to interviews. Some of the effects are kind of cheesy between interview cuts, 3D lettering always comes off as made on my home PC.

I wonder if future voice recognition and speech synthesis will be able to take old global-climate-warming-change content and turn it into new man-caused-ice-age content by cutting and pasting today’s video clips of “experts”. It is best to get on the new bandwagon early and being able to reuse all the old documentaries would save a lot of leg work.

“That could mean more than 100,000 scholarly articles per year that at least cite studies on climate change.”

+++++

What does that have to do with establishing a clear link between AG emissions of CO2 and the temperature of the planet? I write peer reviewed articles and I always have some sop to the climate alarmists in the paper, at least indirectly, to make sure it will get through peer review. I don’t want my work being struck down because I am not genuflecting in the general direction of the altar of human sacrifice that CAGW has become. Is this at least slightly disingenuous? You bet your bottom carbon-tax dollar it is!

If the review process was honest and fair, if manipulators of the journals by CAGW promoters was not so pervasive, if baseless attacks on honest and balanced editors were eliminated, if journalistic freedom was on the ascendant, there would be no need for including such garbage. For example, we never refer to CO2 and CO, we refer to GHG’s because they are GHG’s and that is what the editors want to see. I still cringe each time I see it. We also follow formatting and citation shibboleths and conventions. But don’t think for a single moment that the journal editors, the peer reviewers or the authors are completely sucked into the doom-saying AGW vortex (or should I say, vor-tax?). I do not personally know more than two IPCC authors and reviewers, but they are both fully aware that CAGW is a massive fraud being perpetrated against the people of the world, massive in the sense that the foundation arguments are either unproven or false, and that there are large sums of money being removed from wallets on the basis that it is all true.

Quite right. There is a CBC announcement about a sailing ship passing through the northern NW Passage. The video shows the yacht creeping forward with the sailors spar-poling the giant chunks of floating ice around the hull. They are floating in a massive sea (literally) of gigantic ice cubes one or two metres on a side.

Well done. I am impressed. Good job the big storm broke up the ice or they would have been trapped for a year. At least. Big ice break-up is followed by big freeze.

Let’s see if they can get home without freezing. The NW is very cold right now.

For those who want to follow someting interesteing, take the freeze rate of Arctic ice and plot the first derivative. Go back as far as you like in time. What do you see?

David Ball says:
August 30, 2012 at 10:16 am
BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:14 am
Being an academic, do you not agree that any paper skeptical of climate change does not get funding, but those that adhere to the meme gets tons of funding. Can you apply your critical thinking skills and see the systemic bias in this?

I’ve had NSF grants and have reviewed more than 100 such grants. The grants are funded to provide testing of hypotheses, not to suppor an hypothesis. Reviews and grant panels recommend funding for work that will have an impact on knowledge and which is likely to be well done. The way to get a grant is to show that we are lacking data and testing in an important area and that you are the best person or team to do the work. In every study that I’ve done, some of the results were different than what I expected or maybe, consistent with what I expected but contrary to the views of most other scientists. You never get funding for parroting a “meme” that has little meaning or is already well tested. Papers are accepted for publication because they have something new to offer and the conclusions are well supported by the data. If a “skeptic” has good data and the data are well analyzed and the scientist does a good job of articulating and presenting the results, it will get published. Scientific papers generally talk about the limitations of the study and must consider how the study fits into the literature. There are some skeptical climate scientists and they do get grants and publish papers. They are just a very small and decreasing minority. My most recent paper “attacked” a popular theory. I’ll admit, some reviewers were upset and seemed really picky to me, but the quality of the work was recognized and it was published. Of course, I did not show that the popular theory was “wrong” only that it is less important and applies more narrowly than its proponents thought.

That doesn’t show Antarctic temperatures, it shows the Antarctic sea ice area anomaly. Antarctic sea ice represents a tiny fraction of Antarctic ice and cannot be held to represent the whole Antarctic climate. As I asked Crispin, why the cherry pick?

The South Pole is still cooling. The Arctic is cooling, too, meaning that the sea ice decline is due to wind, water, storms, and ocean currents.
=====
Yes, that truncated SP graph does seen to show significant warming over the past 30+ years – seems to follow global trends. And that global top-of-lower-stratosphere graph you represent as Arctic temperatures is quite impressive too. Keep up the good work.

Just exactly what is the cherry pick here? Let’s get down to brass tacks. Do you think the total land ice volume of Antarctica is increasing or decreasing? Do you think the total Antarctic sea ice volume is increasing or decreasing? Do you think the total Antarctic sea ice area is increasing or decreasing? You are the one who brought up the Antarctic ice so I presume you are up to date on these topics.

Your reference to O’Donnell is noted. Didn’t he already withdraw that paper or was it that he apologised for its obvious errors? Or both? Oh, right….

You should stop underestimating your correspondents or switch to another, less popular channel.

Bill – with respect, I’d like you to show me ONE climate science paper, purporting to conclude a definitive link between CO2 and global warming, which further shows all the data and all the limitations of that data and study, (and the FULL and REALISTIC limitations of any models used therein!) – and moreover, which CORRECTLY and scientifically summarises the findings WITHOUT simply following the purported ‘AGW meme’. I have to say, in all honesty, that I have yet to see one – but I am open to suggestions. The majority of papers I have seen do not meet the general scientific paper standards you mention. Rarely do we see a paper saying it’s findings ‘MAY’ indicate a tentative link to CO2/AGW (though many say that more research is needed! LOL). Even more rarely do we see a paper stating that the data it used has significant error margins (e.g. temp anomalys =/- 1degC yet purporting to show a trend of +0.5degC – etc, etc). These kind of basic scientific facts seem to be absent from the general climate science based papers. As I said, if you could show me ONE, truly scientifically presented and reviewed, pro-AGW paper, I’d be quite amazed (and for heavens sake, don’t try throwing something like the Hockey stick at me!)
My criticism is of course based on the fact that the vast majority of major pro-AGW papers seem to be easily debunked by proper scientific review – or at least, debunked to such a level that the pro-AGW ‘summary’ is clearly indicated to be following the ‘meme’ rather than following the included or indicated science……..
regards
Kev

P. Solar says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
>>
For goodness’ sake, why wouldn’t they WANT people to watch it and thus make it easy for them to watch and to tell their friends about it?
If I can’t watch it, then I’m not likely to recommend it to any of my friends – am I?
>>

Because they want to hit you $$$ before you watch.

I’d be more impressed if they asked for a donation after I’ve watched not just based on the trailer lined here. From what they give you in the trailer I’m find it has nice graphics but seems rather hollow.

Even less impressed when I select “no thanks, I just want to watch the movie” and it takes me back to
CONTRIBUTE NOW RETURN HOME

Very funny. Pseudo-skeptic scam.

========================

You really are a very stupid Troll P Solar. Go back to the website and read the instructions. If that is too difficult for you then try reading through the posts here explaining to your Trolls mates that viewing the whole video is free and donations are voluntary.

Bill – with respect, I’d like you to show me ONE climate science paper, purporting to conclude a definitive link between CO2 and global warming, which further shows

I’m a biologist. Studies on biology do not provide information on the cause of climate warming. Rather, they look at the effect of climate change, usually on species in nature. With all of the controversy about UHI and Muller’s analysis, it’s interesting to note that plants, animals and microbes are showing strong responses to climate change that are in concert with the observed rate of change in regional and global temperature. In my view, this is much more convincing than a reanalysis of the human temperature record. A while back, Anthony was concerned about how air temperature was measured at a weather station on the shores of Lake Tahoe. However, I can assure you that scientists measuring the effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe measured changes in the organisms, in water temperature and in lake mixing.

Biologist usually do Assume that atmopheric scientists are correct, and the only good explanation for recent warming is the increase green house gases (that is dominated by CO2 from fossil fuels). Thus, biologists expect that the climate will continue to warm. I agree that correlations between CO2 and short term (decades) temperature change are not convincing by themselves. On the other hand, physics and paleo data indicate that CO2 is the dominant factor in recent warming. When 90% or more of the experts believe something is true, it’s hard to see how skeptics can be so sure that the scientists are wrong. In science we have theories based on first principles and then we try to test the theories with predictions about the natural world. Scientists are not basing their conclusions on a single definitive study. Rather, when first principles and 100’s or 1,000s of studies support the same conclusion and there is a lack of support for alternatives, a consensus developes. I understand that many readers and posters on this blog disagree.

…..For those who want to follow someting interesting, take the freeze rate of Arctic ice and plot the first derivative. Go back as far as you like in time. What do you see?
_________________________
I would really like to see that. Is this what you mean? link That is the thaw. I do not see the speed of freeze up or the data so I can plot it myself.

>IIRC, the “unattributed, unreferenced” picture of the cooling Antarctic was on the cover of Nature. Feel free to argue with them if you like.

If you know it’s provenance you should have no problem linking to the study and the data it references.

++++++

Kevin, Smokey is pulling your leg for our entertainment. We know the whole horrible story of Steig et al and the photo on the cover, the immediate trashing of the math by McIntyre and others, the eventual admission by Steig there were terminal problems with his math, the problems with O’Donnel having based his paper on Steig plus introduction of his own set of errors. At least he was mann enough to own up right away and engage with critics on how to correct the problems, just like a real scientist™.

Articulate BS won’t work here. When Nature prints a factual paper on Antarctic temperatures and ice volume changes and some sort of reasonable correlation between them, call me. I will be right here. I will be happy to read it and compare it with papers published in other more balanced journals. Who reviewed Steig’s paper? Can’t they do math?

The temperature on the majority of the continent of Antarctica has been falling ever since permanent stations were set up to measure them in the 50’s. The peninsula is occasionally warmed by the sea. That warming is not extended 1200 km inland as is evidenced by looking at the temperatures measured there (who’da’thot). Even without Antarctica, the Southern Hemisphere temps are slowing: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/figure-9.png even based on the fishy temps that include inflated NZ numbers.

Ice cover? Only 0.5% of the surface of Antarctica is losing ice, and virtually all of it is gaining, though the gain is not significant. “No significant trend in the ice sheet-integrated SMB [surface mass balance] is found over the period 1979–2010, and only (insignificant) trends exist regionally. Snowfall is characterized by strong interannual (s = 114 Gt y1) and intra-annual variability (s =30 Gt mo1). Snowdrift sublimation is the main ablation process and shows little interannual variability (s = 9 Gt y1).”

@BillD
‘However, I can assure you that scientists measuring the effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe measured changes in the organisms, in water temperature and in lake mixing….’
I am not a biologist – I’m a geologist – so straightaway, I would say to you, how do you know the water temperature changes are solely climate related? You will have heard of geothermal heat for example? and what about the temperature of incoming water? as for lake mixing, how about incoming water being of different salinity(dissolved salts) and rock debris, density, etc – perhaps as a result of acid rain or wetter/drier weather, deforestation, etc, etc. My point being that there could be hundreds of ‘other’ causes for the observations. For example, did someone measure the influxing water temps, density, ? etc, etc – anyway, you are obviously a scientist, so you should get my gist. However, perhaps not – as you continue to quote the ‘consensus’ view – which many times has been proven to be wrong! but in the climate science AGW theme, they don’t even have a proper theory, barely a hypothesis, and that hypothesis if oft shown to be falsified by observations!
as has been said a million times – correlation does not automatically mean causation. In the climate change meme, this seems to be conveniently ignored!

BillD says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:11 am
You wrote a lot but said nothing. The system, regarding climate science and climatology (two VERY different things), is gamed for those supporting a weak hypothesis that is being proven incorrect with every passing day, yet policy is being foisted upon us. You are weakly defending a systemic bias that has corrupted the field. That was a very entertaining tap dance, though.

Oh dear a return to infamous game of claiming high percentage of people support AGW , based on what , awful research or speculation? If you going to make a factual statement its best to make sure your evidenced is good enough to support the ‘facts ‘ in the first place.
By the way over 90% of Catholic Priests say god exist , has their the ‘experts’ I take you agree that god must exist and to claim otherwise is ‘denial’

It seems that those defending Co2 driven climate are doing so because it is financially better to tow the line than to look at any real evidence. Go along to get along. Grow some stones and start thinking for yourselves.

Mike P—Above I point out that the new issue of Climate Change Biology has 20+ open access articles. So, I assume that one journal has about 200 articles on climate change per year. That’s just one specialized journal! Climate change is published in at least 50 journals representing diverse fields, as well as general journals like Science and Nature. So, I would guess that there are at least several thousand peer reviewed studies on climate change each year. Maybe there are a few thousand physics and atmospherics studies, 1000 + paleo studies and a few thousand studies on biological changes. I am leaving out studies on economics, renewable energy etc, which probably include a few thousand per year. Way more than anyone person can read.

If you do a search on “Climate change” in Google Scholar you get over 2 million hits. Most of the articles cited in Google Scholar are peer reviewed, although I am sure that not all of them are good original articles on climate change. Review articles are also important, however. I would guess that a big marjority of the 2 million plus are within the last 10 years. That could mean more than 100,000 scholarly articles per year that at least cite studies on climate change.

==========================
Yes Academic Bill. No denying there are lots of snouts feeding in that public trough.

Now that I watched it, a bit of criticism: The “background” music is so loud that at times I couldn’t really hear what the speaker was saying – and that’s really tiring, really annoying. I would rather have the whole thing without the music then without the spoken word.
As for the introductory page – well, there is a world of difference between PREMIER and PREMIERE, and the comma in “…prediction, has proven to be ..” is really unfortunate.
Overall, though, not bad for first effort, not at all. Thanks for it.

“Yes, our climate has clearly shown that it is capable of extremes far beyond anything envisaged in IPCC reports. Am I somehow supposed to be reassured by the fact that sea levels have previously been between 6m and 52m higher than at present?”

Sux, doesn’t it. The new math………….. It helps if the batteries in your calculator are really close to becoming hazardous waste………………….just sayin’

I wasn’t really calling BillD, James. More that I was wanting him to realise that such a paper doesn’t exist (to my knowledge) – i.e. meeting the sound and valid criteria he mentioned earlier!
This basically illustrates the disgust that many of us feel with respect to climate science – that the real scientific method has been hermetically sealed in a radioactive containment device and buried in thick concrete by the ‘team’ – to be replaced with pseudo-science and consensus. The mere fact that Bill confirms that ‘his’ profession essentially ‘accepts’ the climate boys output as valid demonstrates how crazy this is and clearly demonstrates that even as biologists they will be looking for the ‘climate’ effects! Confirmation bias or what?!
I wonder if Bill always accepts what his car mechanic or doctor says, without question or query? ‘What? you say I need a new engine?’ ‘Ok then, here’s a couple of grand, will that cover it?….etc, etc” Am not really meaning to make a meal of it, Bill – but it sure does look as if you’ve been drawn into the pseudoscience scam, which is a shame! A return to first principles is required to ‘see’ past the bulldust!
regards
Kev

How many skeptics don’t believe in the integrety of international science, such as peer review but think that postings by Christopher Monckton, pronouncements by Heartland Insistitute and the movie posted here are just great. Sorry, I can’t understand how you believe in such easily debunked information. In my view, even posting this stuff takes away from the credibility of WUWT.

REPLY: After reviewing the many comments (226) you’ve left here it is clear to me you don’t think WUWT has any credibility anyway, so your comment is disingenuous. I always find the biologists the most emotional of the bunch on the AGW issue, so you are forgiven. – Anthony

TomT & BillD, you CAGW leaders all fly to the conferences. They stay in luxury air-conditioned hotels. They are driven around in huge limos. Another one of you advocates, Bongo from U2 flys everywhere and his highly amplified pop band lugs huge stage set ups from continent to continent. Then there is the globe trotting, multiple maintained luxury residences Al Gore. Therefore, things can’t be as dire as you say. I will start believing you when your leaders and the UN go sort of Amish.

Adding together your brief reply to me and another to David, we are very clear on your stance: total ice mass on Antarctica is not to be discussed without also including ice shelves and glacier calving. When I do talk about total ice mass on the continent I mean the total, and whether or not it is increasing or reducing or staying about the same. So, why don’t you start communicating instead of complaining? I think it is because you have no support for your position which I think favours CAGW as a major current risk.

I understand the difficulty of the position you have chosen to defend which is that human sourced CO2 is melting Antarctica. It flies in the face of the evidence. So I feel sorry for the hot-footing you have to do to maintain the appearance that it melting. It is not melting, Kevin. It is accumulating slowly, on average. It is getting colder though I note that the surface temperature is strongly influence by the wind speed (see the above reference paper one continental cooling and the temperatures recorded at the South Pole).

Your favourite complaint is that I am ‘cherry picking’ which has accompanied each snippet you have contributed. Each time I demonstrate that some claim you have made is false, you assert that the evidence is ‘cherry picked’, as if there were other conflicting evidence which you fail to provide. At some point you will either have to hold an actual discussion of evidence, or be ignored.

richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:30 am
Thank you. I always read and enjoy your posts. WUWT? always keeps me in stitches as there are some very clever people that post here. One of the multitude of reasons I try to read everything on this site.

It is kinda funny that Kevin felt he had to make SOME kind of response. Posting the definition of cherry-pick was too funny. Having read the majority of alarmist, Co2 driven, myopic, CHERRY-PICKED papers, I know the definition of cherry-pick all too well.

BillD, Dr. Tim Ball is a Phd in Climatology. Is that credible enough for you? Or do you believe the [snip . . site policy] written about him on Desmogblahblah? They have said FAR worse things about him than what he is being sued for, and yet keeps on truckin’ (you have to have thick skin in academics, eh?). I am glad you have the temerity to post here. We don’t get that kind of consideration or voice on ANY alarmist site. If those are not big enough clues for you, you need to get out of research cause your neurons are malfunctioning.

Noted and affirmed. I don’t need to rub anything in for poor Kevin. It is hard trying to keep a straight face when dealing with real evidence instead of some select straws. I openly challened a solar (star) expert on another discussion list to a debate – he should pick the topic, any topic, and we will discuss actual evidence and relationships. The response has been two weeeks of silence. The citing of the O’Donnel paper was both typical and unfortunate. I guess it works on sites where people are not well informed. As you say, there are so many high quality contributors here it is a must-read daily visit.

Kevin, you don’t have to respond. It is important that we share resources and check into the reality of what is taking place in the atmosphere, no preconceptions. ‘Climate’ is not a team sport. It is a search for truth, even where there are multiple coexisting interpretations of what that is. I find physicists the most willing to maintain dual versions of reality without having to toss one out. We can learn from that ability.

We are all children of the half-light and should help each other as we stumble around. Even the seeing are only one-eyed. It is not wrong, it is reality.

I like to think that Robert E. Phelan ( I was going to put REP, but felt he deserves more recognition) is still at his computer on high, keeping me in line. No need to post this. It is cathartic to write it out. Cheers

Crispin in Waterloo says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:04 am
“We are all children of the half-light and should help each other as we stumble around. Even the seeing are only one-eyed. It is not wrong, it is reality.”

I think you were being far too kind in your reply Anthony! BillD has made no effort to engage properly, despite the direct flaws in his ‘argument’ (more like beliefs?) being clearly demonstrated. That said, and I would always try to be pleasant and respectful, as per your high standards – it does appear that BillD is trolling somewhat, as he has made no effort to respond in a reasonable manner, which is a shame, as it appeared as if he may have had some scientific credibility (unlike the CAGW promoters he follows!). just my view…..

“Ignoring the unfortunate comma, this is a silly statement! Why must ‘our’ side stoop to thoughtless exaggeration? Change ‘Every’ to ‘Almost all’ and the spiel would have real credibility.”

Geez! Agreement with the comma aside, the question is not about how to shape a statement to make people more likely to believe it, it’s about whether the statement is true or not. If it IS true, then saying it is true most of the time in order to get people to accept it is an example of manipulation, not truth telling. And, by your use of “spiel,” you seem to have already concluded that it’s all just matter of how many people one can motivate to support one’s story regardless of its truth content. Well, that’s just propaganda.

If the news in the matter is that ALL the claims they are making are fictional and that such a hoax can be substantiated, then a valuable service has been provided. So, is the statement true? Put it into a wider context: Have there been previous instances of such folks like global warmists making claims that were wholly untrue (or untrue for the reasons they gave, meaning that they were irrelevant and manipulative)? Think of these: the threat of acid rain, the threat of desertification, the threat of overpopulation, the threat of DDT, the threat of nuclear meltdown/nuclear waste disposal/radiation, the threat of cancer-causing chemicals, the threat of nuclear winter. Every single one of these, along with global warming and now climate change, was pushed as a harbinger of destruction of mankind and/or the world UNLESS something was done: that something was invariably the adoption of top-down government control of every aspect of people’s lives designed and managed by those very people who were promoting the impending disaster.

Sorry, the 8 minute clip I watched is utter nonsense, especially about global cooling in the 70’s. For example, think about the kind of phone you had in the 70’s compared to today – Google it if you’re too young to know. No comparison, right? So why do people insist on comparing climate science in the 70’s, when it was very much in it’s infancy, to climate science today? I’ve heard our science knowledge at least doubles every 10 years which means our understanding of climate has improved by several orders of magnitude since 1970, just as the sophistication of your phone has.

The 70’s global cooling story is obvious propaganda and is very easy to blow out of the water. I’m sure there are many skeptics here that agree with me, if they have the courage to step up. I will freely admit there has been some misleading stuff coming out of some in the AGW camp, pictures of cute polar bear cubs being one of them. I’m interested in the truth and will call out garbage when I see it, whether or not it supports my viewpoint. How about you?

You must be new here. We’ve gone over the ’70’s global cooling scare many, many times. It gets tedious rehashing it every time someone questions it. But the fact is that there was indeed a global cooling scare. It may not have been as extensive as the current false alarm, but it was real. I remember it well. Use the WUWT archives, you will learn a lot.

MacDonald cites the ridiculously biased William Connoley, who was permanently ejected from WUWT for his nonsense? Find someone credible, I lived through the global cooling false alarm and clearly remember the wild-eyed scare stories quoting scientists who claimed the planet was going to freee over. If MacDonald believes Connolley it is because they both inhabit the same bubble of ignorance.

Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.
~ Leon Trotsky

It has been pointed out by others that every fact that contradicts Kevin MacDonald’s beliefs is a “cherry pick”. That is the crutch MacDonald leans on when he lacks a credible argument, and he overuses it to the point that it is meaningless. Like calling skeptics “deniers” when someone lacks any rational argument.

It has been pointed out by others that every fact that contradicts Kevin MacDonald’s beliefs is a “cherry pick”. That is the crutch MacDonald leans on when he lacks a credible argument, and he overuses it to the point that it is meaningless. Like calling skeptics “deniers” when someone lacks any rational argument.

There is no way of testing this hypothesis, because no one has yet posted a link to anything that contradicts my assertion that Antarctica is in negative ice mass balance, instead repeatedly returning to Antarctic sea ice; a subject I have not been discussing, also known as a cherry pick.

In the face of a relentless slew of cherry picks I see no other option. What is your obsession with Antarctic sea ice extent, a metric I have made no claims for? Do you have anything to say about Antarctica’s ice mass balance?

Having seen nothing from Kevin that was not debunked within days of birth, I am moving on to newer threads. So much for the value of ‘peer reviewed climate science’. Thankfully that level of incompetence doesn’t generally prevail. One of the students I advise just got a paper into ESD and it was a strain (and fair).

I was interested to read that the ice Eastern side of Antarctia is deepening at 15 ft per year. I knew it was increasing but not as fast as that. Wow.

The other important point was that the surface temperature is strongly affected by wind speed, not particularly direction because the air above the surface is quite a bit warmer than on the surface. Stonger winds means more mixing and a higher surface tempeature. As the trend from 1958 is down at all inland stations there is a possibility that we should check, which is that the wind speeds may have been slowly dropping, on average. That is possible from solar causes (as per the N-S depth of the polar jet streams, though I would expect something more related to an 11 or 22 year cycle to be evident. Anyway, keep an eye out for something related to surface wind speeds. Failing any difference, it means the average temp of Antarctica is slowly dropping on a decadal basis.

I found a great cartoon showing the opinion of skeptics as viewed by Consensus Believers. It also reminds me of warmists who show up here to ‘teach the skeptics a lesson about climate’. :)

Having seen nothing from Kevin that was not debunked within days of birth, I am moving on to newer threads.

A generous interpretation, but, given that no one has actually debunked the claim that Antarctica is in negative ice mass balance, a better assessment would be that you’ve decided that discretion is the better part of valour and are beating a hasty retreat.

Right, Crispin. Anyone who inappropriately uses a crutch like “cherry pick” isn’t worth more pixels. Debating someone who doesn’t fall back on the nonsense “cherry pick” line in almost every post is much more interesting. Debunking MacDonald’s comments is becoming routine and boring. It’s just too easy.

Right, Crispin. Anyone who inappropriately uses a crutch like “cherry pick” isn’t worth more pixels. Debating someone who doesn’t fall back on the nonsense “cherry pick” line in almost every post is much more interesting. Debunking MacDonald’s comments is becoming routine and boring. It’s just too easy.

Area isn’t mass. If you prefer I don’t have to call it a cherry pick, arguing against a case I’m not making is also a straw man fallacy.

Look forward to watching this , btw what happened with acid rain ? I seem to remember pictures of dead forests dead fish , stories of lakes turned to battery acid , well maybe vinegar and it was all down to us but now it seems to have just evaporated from memory .

I was there. I saw the stories in Time and Newsweek about the new Ice Age. Take your pick and ….

Is that the renowned scientific journals Time and Newsweek? Doesn’t say much for your skepticism. I make it a rule never to take anything I read in the media at face value, especially where science is concerned, they are, unfailingly, looking for a dramatic angle to better shift copy.

Kevin MacDonald says: {making solid, unrefuted points on many fronts}
======================
Kevin, I’m sure you do consider the character of the site you’re posting on, and the history of the individuals you are interacting with …. understand, tho’, that there observers of your exchanges who chuckle at the futility and weakness-of-argument made by those trying to counter your points. It’s not their minds that will be influenced in any way, rather, those with some semblance of fair open-mindedness who might weigh the relative strength of arguments.

TomT says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:16 am
“These cycles were discovered by scientific research. By the same group of folks that are describing AGW.”

Not true. The “AGW folks” have sought to minimize the works of researchers that have publicized cyclical data. Wikipedia for example was rewritten by 1 author. The IPCC conclusions rewritten by 1 author.

The key word: rapidity.

Humans have gone from using 4% if the earths surface to using 40% over the past 150 years. Our cities alone now use as much land surface as was used for cities and agriculture combined 150 years ago. Yet, the AGW folks seek to minimize the effects this extremely rapid land change is having on local weather and temperatures, in an effort to promote their own policies.

How best to deal with climate change is not Climate Science, it is Economic and Technical policy. By seeking to involve themselves in policy, Climate Scientists are no longer working as scientists. They are working as policy advocates, which brings then into a conflict of interest, which reduces their credibility.

Science is supposed to be policy neutral to eliminate bias. When you seek to advocate one policy over another you have introduced bias in the direction of your policy, and are no longer neutral.